Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

Obama goes around Congress to forge "legally binding" climate regs with the UN

Posted on 8/26/14 at 8:52 pm
Posted by CptBengal
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
71661 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 8:52 pm
quote:

In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

“If you want a deal that includes all the major emitters, including the U.S., you cannot realistically pursue a legally binding treaty at this time,” said Paul Bledsoe, a top climate change official in the Clinton administration who works closely with the Obama White House on international climate change policy.


LINK
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
98411 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 8:55 pm to
Nothingburger.

Not even that pederast Reid can get that bullshite through.

No force of law equals nothing.

Oh, and frick Obama and the UN.
This post was edited on 8/26/14 at 8:56 pm
Posted by Meauxjeaux
98836 posts including my alters
Member since Jun 2005
39845 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:03 pm to
You forgot the most important part.

quote:

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.
Posted by CptBengal
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
71661 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:03 pm to
quote:

and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.


well if Obama says so!
Posted by GEAUXT
Member since Nov 2007
29205 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:04 pm to
seriously, i have had just about enough of that mother fricker's shite. besides the fact that i disagree with everything he tries to do, it's the precedents for executive power that are doing the most damage.

i won't hold my breath for the liberal blowhards to acknowledge any of it though
Posted by KCT
Psalm 23:5
Member since Feb 2010
38911 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:05 pm to
This is one more reason I despise Obama.

He loves the United Nations; he hates America.
Posted by FightinTigersDammit
Louisiana North
Member since Mar 2006
34574 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:05 pm to
quote:

You forgot the most important part.


quote:


American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.


In other words, circumventing the law.
Posted by tigernchicago
Alabama
Member since Sep 2003
5075 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:06 pm to
If the asshat does this he will have earned

Impeachment by the House

Conviction by the Senate

Execution of he and his seed.
Posted by FightinTigersDammit
Louisiana North
Member since Mar 2006
34574 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:07 pm to
quote:

If the asshat does this he will have earned

Impeachment by the House

Conviction by the Senate

Execution of he and his seed.
Posted by RCDfan1950
United States
Member since Feb 2007
34850 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 9:37 pm to
quote:

Execution of he and his seed.


Damn...I heard that Chicago was hardcore!

The good people own this land. They built this Nation. After the Progressive fling...we'll fix this stuff when Obama goes away. Not that it won't hurt.

Read "Abundance". You'll feel a lot better.



Posted by TexasTiger68
The Woodlands, TX
Member since Nov 2008
207 posts
Posted on 8/26/14 at 10:04 pm to
quote:

Read "Abundance". You'll feel a lot better.


Anything recommended by Arianna Huffington is relegated to the do not read list.
Posted by McLemore
Member since Dec 2003
31426 posts
Posted on 8/27/14 at 8:37 am to
How does anyone take the NYT seriously?

quote:

especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.


"Established"? You mean, we've established it is not based on the scientific method? Wtf
Posted by UncleFestersLegs
Member since Nov 2010
10801 posts
Posted on 8/27/14 at 9:48 am to
quote:

"But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate."


Gee Obama is gonna use a loophole to bypass congressional approval. Who woulda guessed that?
Posted by JuiceTerry
Roond the Scheme
Member since Apr 2013
40868 posts
Posted on 8/27/14 at 10:07 am to
Your quote says the opposite of your title..
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram